How many people joined DU to support Democrats and...

how many joined to oppose authority? I understand that authority for nearly 8 years of DU's existence was represented by the Bush administration, but there seems to be a lot of people that just substituted bashing Bush for bashing Obama because he now represents authority in this country.

Edited to add: I don't care how many of you rec or unrec this thread. It's score is meaningless to me so knock yourselves out.

I don't support DLC/Blue Balled corporatist fellating cowards.

They are no better than the Chimp, and arguably worse.... because the Chimp never got my vote, and never claimed to be on my side.

and worse than Bush?

But since you asked, I'm trying to remain cautiously optimistic about him. Despite an economic team made up of Goldmine Sucks and "Federal" Reserve shills, when a return to FDR style economic policies would be the correct solution.

And how many MonSatan shills are in the administration now? I can't exactly feel good about that.

But my comments in general were aimed at the Baucus/Conrad/Nelson Twins/Spineless Harry types.

Just wondering if that was who your response was about. I agree that Blue Dogs suck.

fellatio is worth using as an insult.

Maybe this ain't the place for you if you think the Prez is a coward.

Infants can stomp their little feet all they want, cooking dinner still takes time.

:eyes:

defending corporate fellating cowards.

Nap time??

:eyes:

corporate fellating whatevers you keep blabbering about??

:dem:

-Laelth

If people support those ideals, I support them. If not, I don't - even if they call themselves Democrats.

I certainly do. I agree some Democrats clearly do not.

does not mean you do not support Democratic ideals. We have many wealthy Democrats that have been unwavering champions of liberalism. Kerry, Kennedy, Roosevelt, heck Howard Dean's family comes from the finance sector.

People like Summers, who destroyed manufacturing in this country then went to Wall Street for his reward, and Geithner who spends far more time talking to his bank buddies than with the congresspeople who are charged with regulating them.

And his policies to date have wildly favored the hyper-wealthy over everyone else. The banks have $13 Trillion in loan guarantees so they can continue to make money. You and I get zero guarantees on our loans, so we have to pay through the nose for credit. The banks got a trillion in direct bailouts so they could pay themselves staggering bonuses. Blue-collar GM got eviscerated.

There have been a total of zero new regulations placed on the bankers that almost wiped out the world last year - but now they've been given $13 trillion of US tax money to gamble with,

This is not what Democrats do. Never.

But I think the economy needs to be stabilized before we start monopoly busting the financial industry first. I believe that Obama realizes this and has the people in place now to stabilize things and will start regulating after their job is done. Obama did speak a lot about reigning in banks and Wall Street.

To date, I've seen zero evidence that he's serious about doing anything but helping the wealthiest Americans while throwing small bones to the middle class - and he's had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing. He's also chosen to not fill promises he made as a candidate, such as immediately getting rid of DADT, having a transparent administration, ending torture and extra-legal activities (warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition...) and so forth.

It may be as you say, and I hope it is - but for now, I see no sign of it.

I'll be immensely disappointed too.

the banks and big money junta have taken over this country. You really can't have an honest conversation with someone who thinks that this is in any way ok.

Democratic ideals. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

He has handed his economic policy making over to the criminal leeches who created it.

He took single payer off the table and allowed the corporate scum who created the health care crisis to write the reform. He has denied meetings with those who have the solution, and made back room deals with big pharm to allow them to dictate drug prices as a legalized mob.

He has expanded executive privillege.

Obama is a corporatist through and through and through. He is SURROUNDED by the DLC insiders and the Wall Street worst.

I joined because I was pissed off that George Bush had stolen another election and I stumbled onto DU in my attempts to find an explanation. I support some Democrats, I question a LOT of authority.

... one I've contemplated myself.

You're not going to get a lot of honest answers.

Not necessarily forthcoming, but certainly honest.

... but here's an honest answer.

I joined DU because I was browsing the Internet one day in 2004 and was directed to a thread on DU that had a poll. I wanted to respond to the poll. To do so, I joined.

Am I typical? I have no idea. However, I very much doubt many people joined DU with any kind of specific, grand intent. It's a discussion forum. That's why I joined, to discuss things. That's why most people joined, although the definition of "discuss" varies widely from person to person.

I served as a delegate to the Democratic state convention in Maine, I served as a local Democratic leader. I've always caucused for Democrats and voted for them in elections. I feel that all good things in our government have been achieved by Democrats and the Democratic Party. I will always support a Democratic president as the leader of our party and will defend him against ad hominem attacks.

and the first hit was Top 10 Idiots!

:rofl:

Been here ever since.

leanings.

I'm not looking for lockstep, just wondering why so many people here do nothing but complain about how disappointing they think Obama has been.

I've been disappointed w/Obama about certain things, but I do support him strongly -- just not blindly. When I knee jerk react, I try to step back and be realistic and pragmatic, and I realize I was usually expecting him to work a miracle (just because that's what I'd like!). I sincerely believe he's doing the very best he can, and I'm grateful for all he has done! :hi:

n/m

Do tell us what YOU consider to be constructive ways to complain about policy and criticize some of the decisions/appointements President Obama has made.

This should be interesting.

Wimps don't make good presidents.

He's got quite a few accomplishments already for a supposedly ineffective leader.

Especially when congress seems to think its job is to orally pleasure the insurance industry.

when any lobbyist generally only needs two or three senators to halt legislation.

So that they stand up to those bad apples and make them bow to the public's will.

I think too many of this country's issues are caused by people being in constant fear.

Also, I meant that POLITICIANS should be in constant fear, not the populace. Sorry if I was a bit unclear :)

Politicians are the populace too, when they're afraid they do stuff like pass the Patriot Act and allow Bush to invade Iraq. Has any member of congress proved otherwise to your satisfaction, or do they have an impossible standard to meet to gain your respect?

Instead, they are elected by the people to represent those people. So it logically follows that congress should be passing legislation to help the People, rather than a few rich folks on Wall Street. That's why I generally only I respect populists like Grayson.

The personification of corrupt politician. LOL

And his "Share Our Wealth" Program was 10x better than the New Deal.

Would you support a benevolent dictatorship? Someone who is dedicated to the general welfare of their subjects, but has absolute power.

:) Anyways, Long may have been slightly corrupt (mostly at a local level), but he never showed any dictatorial aspirations. He wanted power, but unlike today's politicians, he eschewed sucking up to the privilege and instead went to the masses for support.

You're making the Republican argument that intelligence and rational decisionmaking = "wimp." Maybe you'd like a dose of arrogance and stupidity from W again? I'll pass and keep Obama.

By the way, why are you Anonymous?

Because Obama won't do that, he is being a wimp.

Oh and I am "anonymous" because I couldn't think of a cool name when I signed up, so I went with anonymous.

He leads, just not in the way we've become used to in the last 8 years. I prefer his approach to W's kicking the doors down and doing whatever he wanted no matter the consequences. At the end of the day, Obama's attempts at unity will make the GOP look worse.

And I still think we'll get a public option- I'm either an optimist or a sucker. Don't answer that...

Congresscritters have egos and President Obama doesn't want to publicly crush those egos. He appears to be negotiating a lot behind the scenes. He just doesn't feel the need to bloviate from the rose garden all the time.

I like his approach. He actually is more of a leader than W ever was.

:eyes:

system that puts profits before people and the politicians who enable it.

Just looking for some clarification.

I think it's a logical inference from your post.

As I said, I support truth and exposing lies. I'm not interested in fitting my response to your pre-conceptions.

Aren't they? Heck you're even fighting the authority that the framework of my question imposes.

Of my government..I am their employer..they are not an authority to me..I am the authoirty and can and will remove them with my vote and my voice when they are corrupt or otherwise..polititicans are not authority..we the people are "their authority" and when or if they forget that, they must be removed from office that we the people allow them to "serve". They "serve " at our pleasure! Not the other way around!

the people'. But you then use the phrase 'those in charge' referring to elected officials. They are not supposed to be in charge of US. They were hired BY us. The only authority they are supposed to have is the authority given to them by the people.

What has happened is that special interests have bought their services, and too often that is who they think they work for. It is the duty of citizens to remind them constantly that that is not the case.

Too often, partisans on both sides insist at election time, that we continue to support those politicians who have not been doing a good job for US. And up to now, many of us did that. In our defense, we had little choice over the past several years. We thought that the solution to fixing the bad policies of the Republican Party was to give the Democrats a majority.

Now they have it, after eight years of hard work on the part of the people. So far, nothing has been done about the major issues that drove the people to kick out the Republican Party. I mean issues like pouring money into two wars. Wars are just as bad when a Democrat is in the WH as they are when a Republican is there.

Health-care is at this point, an issue of national security. Which means it involves the safety and well-being of the people. If reform ends up handing over more money to the people who caused the problems we have, forcing the poor to pay those people more money or go to jail, that will be a failure that we cannot blame the Republicans for. We'll see.

We also thought that there would be accountability for the breaking of laws with a Democratic majority. I joined DU in 2004 because people here wanted to see all of those issues dealt with. Now, I see people who think they are not as important as they were when Bush was president. Sorry, but politics to me is about the issues, not personalities or political affiliations.

I haven't given up on Obama, but I am very disturbed by some of his cabinet choices especially his economic team. Not to mention his COS and the DLC element that works for him.

I don't understand people changing their minds about issues that were so important during the Bush years, just because Bush is gone.

I'm not sure what you mean by opposing 'authority'. People oppose bad policies, no matter which party is implementing them. I don't see how anything is gained for the country if citizens remain silent when they see bad policies going into effect. I think you have a wrong idea about the role of politicians, just as many of them have. They are not 'in charge' of us. They work for us and we should not let them forget that.

Now, shut up, get in line and don't ask questions!!!!! :evilgrin:

And I prefer dancing to marching. :D

:hug:
sw

When they don't, I vote otherwise. I've been a registered Democrat since 1965 but I owe no allegiance to any party.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

for no other reason.

:fistbump:

To promote investment in public goods and jobs. To regulate what people are allowed to do to the environment and their employees.

Nothing wrong with that.

personally , i don't think it is any of your damn business..so i won't answer your question..oh and I too was an 'ELECTED DELEGATE" in my state and i have worked my ass of for the dem party..but i think your question is out of line when you go about commenting throughout on people's reasons for joining with a judgmental attitude,

Bashing Obama, the Police, the TSA, anybody at all in Government. Honestly, I respond to comments for the sole purpose of keeping the thread bumped up. Also it's courtesy. If someone takes the time to respond to me, it's only proper to acknowledge that response.

I see critical threads frequently here, as it is a discussion board about politics. I also see the spin filled p.r. work threads, the 'my President come hell or high water' threads. I see lots of everything here. No dearth of any particular subject matter.

about things i don't like and that do not support my democratic principles or democratic values..if I question it or am upset about it..in your view..I am bashing???????..well it is "you" i would question for not questioning things that fly in the face of democratic ideals and values..after all , as you said you were a delegate..well so was I... and I was elected to represent the people of my district of my state...I take and took that responsibility very seriously..did you??...that means calling out dems ..any and all of them that work against democratic values, and principles, that is your responsibility, as well as your responsibility as an American..not just to be a sheeple for anything and everything Obama or our congress and senate...do or propose.

THEY FUCKING WORK FOR US!

IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CALL THEM OUT WHEN THEY GO AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION AND WHAT WE VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE FOR.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT..THEY ARE MERE POLITITICANS ..THEY SERVE US!

TELL ME... WHEN, AS A DEMOCRAT, YOU SUPPORTED KISSINGER????? AHHH BUT OBAMA DOES..AND GEITHNER IS A PROTOGE OF KISSINGER..WHO'S NICK NAME IS "THE BUTCHER OF CAMBODIA"

i DO NOT HAVE A SHIORT MEMORY OF THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY THAT KISSINGER IS AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR..HE IS THE MOST EVIL MAN THAT WORKED IN MY GOVERNMENT IN MY LIFETIME..BAR NONE!


YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT I AM GOING TO POINT THIS SHIT OUT!...


FROM SEVERAL OF MY RECENT POSTS ..BUT I POSTED MORE LAST YEAR AND LAST SPRING AS WELL WHEN PEOPLE BEGAN QUESTIONING OBAMA'S POSITIONS.


better to know how and why politicians act in the way they do, than bitch about it after you have been screwed to the wall!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

What we are seeing is a Financial Oligarchy ..run by a few with all the power over all of us.
Posted by flyarm in Latest Breaking News
Wed Oct 14th 2009, 12:09 PM
from my journal:


What we are seeing is a Financial Oligarchy ..run by a few with all the power over all of us.
Posted by flyarm in Latest Breaking News
Mon Jul 20th 2009, 01:11 AM
Look who Obama has appointed to his Executive Branch...and their memberships to elite groups.



Timothy Geithner, Secretary of Treasury..former Pres of the Federal Reserve Bank
Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, CFR

Ambassador to UN Susan Rice..Trilateral Commission

National Security Advisor, Gen James L. Jones: Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Comm, CFR

Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon: CFR

Special State Dept Speical Envoy, Henry Kissinger: Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, CFR

Chairman of Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volcker: Bilderberg Group , Trilateral Comm., CFR

Larry Summers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summ ...


There are powers at work invested in marginalizing the truth tellers, they try to divide us and sub- divide us to take us into a financial Oligarchy..don't let them!

snip:
As Treasury Secretary, Summers led the Clinton Administration's opposition to tax cuts proposed by the Republican Congress in 1999. <10> Also during his stint in the Clinton Administration, Summers was successful in pushing for capital gains tax cuts. During the California energy crisis of 2000, then-Treasury Secretary Summers teamed with Alan Greenspan and Enron executive Kenneth Lay to lecture California Governor Gray Davis on the causes of the crisis, explaining that the problem was excessive government regulation.<11> Under the advice of Kenneth Lay, Summers urged Davis to relax California's environmental standards in order to reassure the markets.<12>

Summers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act): "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," Summers said.<13> "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."<13> Many critics, including President Barack Obama, have suggested the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis was caused by the partial repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act.<14>


snip:

National Economic Council
In 2009, he was tapped by President Obama to be the director of the White House National Economic Council<1><31>. He has emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration, where he has attracted both praise and criticism. There has been friction between Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, as Volcker has accused Summers of delaying the effort to organize a panel of outside economic advisers, and has cut Volcker out of White House meetings and has not shown interest in collaborating on policy solutions to the current economic crisis. <32> On the other hand, Obama himself was reportedly thrilled with the work Summers did in his first few weeks on the job. And Peter Orzag, andother top economic advisor, calls Summers "one of the world’s most brilliant economists." <33>

In January 2009, as the Obama Administration tried to pass an economic stimulus spending bill, Oregon Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio criticized Summers, saying that he thought that President Barack Obama is "ill-advised by Larry Summers. Larry Summers hates infrastructure." <34>. DeFazio, along with liberal economists including Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, has argued that more of the stimulus should be spent on infrastructure,<35> while Summers has supported tax cuts.

Summers has recently come under fire for accepting perks from Citigroup, including free rides on its corporate jet last summer.<36> According to the Wall Street Journal, Larry Summers called Chris Dodd asking him to remove caps on executive pay at firms which have received stimulus money, including Citigroup. <37>

On April 3, 2009 Summers came under renewed criticism after it was disclosed that he was paid millions of dollars the previous year by companies which he now has influence over as a public servant. He earned $5 million from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw, and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money.<38>

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and From an April post of mine here at DU: and please, don't believe me click the link..it was in the CFR publication!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remarks by National Security Adviser Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy

Published February 8, 2009
Speaker: James L. Jones


U.S. National Security Adviser Jones ( edit to add: new advisor hired by Obama!!!!) gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.

"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.


Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remar ... ...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

because he grew up with Obama in Indonesia? Maybe?? And Obama's mom worked with Geithner's dad
Posted by flyarm in Latest Breaking News
Wed Oct 14th 2009, 11:51 AM
with the Ford Foundation in Indonesia perhaps?????

and do look up the connections of the Ford Foundation..and many believe it was a front for the CIA.

Oh and do look at Timmy's bio..and his connections to Kissinger..you know the guy who's nickname is the Butcher of Cambodia...and his connections to the CFR and was the President of the Federal Reserve of NY..

Go ahead look him up..I posted about him alot, but people ingored it.

People tend to do that until they get hit directly in their own pocket book or lose their own jobs!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geith...

I'd like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves.

Chorus:
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That's the real thing.

Peace is achievable in a 60 second commercial. Not so much so for longer durations like real life.

You have officially confused me. Maybe I should go to bed now instead of arguing on teh internets.

:blush:

as are your replies.

Please take my comments in the best sense possible. :thumbsup:

Sleep tight.

Hence the ambiguity. I think a discussion that allows us to see the different points of view we approach DU with may foster better understanding. I wanted to avoid the "Cheerleader"/"Pony Wanter" fights that break out here and, admittedly, I have taken part in in the past.

There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who don't know what to do with themselves if they're not raging against "the man."

Many listened to it to be counter culture. They didn't know what to do when "their music" became popular.

This is my first post here at DU, and I definitely joined to support progressive Democrats! I don't know how to rec, but I would if I could.

:hi:

I'm happy to be here B-)

Occasionally a highly dysfunctional family, but family none the less.

:hide:

:P

P.S. :hug: :loveya:

:mad: All the hawt Redheads are married ;):loveya: :) :hi:

are also married, in my experience. :rofl:

Happy Sunday, friend! :*

;) Happy Sunday to you,the old man ;), and of course Ginger :hug: :*

Will pass your Happy Sunday on to my better halves. :rofl:

:hug:

Living in red state hell is bad now, in 2001 when I first joined DU it was infinitely worse, bushie was at 95% approval nationally and about 99.99% where I live, I thought (and still think) he fucked goats when he wasn't reading about them.

To be interested, nay obsessed, with politics and have no one whatsoever IRL to discuss it with who agreed with me on anything was about to drive me mad.

*same shit, different location
:hi:

:hi:

When they support their own platform.

You hit the nail on the head!

I'm active in my local party. I work hard every day to add to the party. Guess who I am adding? People who are middle of the roaders who have no affiliation. That is how we win elections. It's all about adding, not subtracting. Subtract the bluedogs, the republicans win. We then enter another Bush era where we see all the thing we have won in the past erode away. We cannot afford to lose another Supreme Court seat. We have to keep adding.

Thank, WonderGrunion, for this thread and for adding. Now I have to go back to the top and add a recommend for you.

And I support those ideals. I'll always oppose ideals that run counter to progressive ideals, no matter who puts them forward.
I imagine if I looked long enough and hard enough I could probably even find a Bush policy I liked. I couldn't fathom what the hell it could be, but I guess there's probably something somewhere in the man's record that wasn't outright corporate feudalism. If for no other reason than because absolutely no one can be totally consistent. (I support pretzels!)

I'll also always oppose authority over a minor disagreement far more than I will the average person over a major one. If for no other reason than they can do far more damage. I firmly believe in supporting policies and ideals instead of people. It's the only way to shift mainstream politics back to the left so AGW, feminism, gay rights, progressive taxation, etc aren't fringe positions anymore.

I do not want a pony. Nor am I stamping my feet. We realize it takes time to implement progressive ideas. We also realize some of the presidents ideas are anything but progressive and think he should be called on them. Some people have elevated politicians to cult leader status. Anything that goes against their current leader must be suppressed and shouted down at every turn. If he's not held accountable, the ship/car/pony is never going to turn and politics will be shifted that much further to the right.

Edited to add: Recced. It's an interesting discussion.

AIDS funding for Africa, if you're looking for a Bush policy you can agree with. Probably one of the only genuinely good things he did in office.

I certainly don't mind constructive criticism of anyone. The kneejerk, name-calling that seems to happen towards President Obama on both sides is hardly constructive and I would hope people on a Democratic/Liberal/Progressive website would be better than that. I don't expect better from Freeps, Teabaggers or Birthers. I probably over-react to criticism from our side more than from the opposing side. I firmly feel the "Republican Revolution" of '94 occurred because our party seemed weak and ineffective due to infighting and inability to pass major legislation.

DU has much less of a problem bashing authority than siding with authority and bashing other people. And that has nothing to do with supporting Democrats. Freepers do that, too.

I do not side with Republic authority. It really is as simple for me as "Democrats - Good! Republicans - Bad!"

I'm a Frankenstein Democrat. I don't like people with torches and pitchforks.

were simply carrying out what the authorities wanted. They weren't the resistance in any way.

He was the one with the god complex after all.

Not God's and not the state's.

You're the queen of drive-by - I consider the source when you post and just roll my eyes.

Pro-truth advocate here.

No matter how much it may shake your "belief" in the latest political persona.

:rofl: you are so arrogant. I suppose by implication the majority of the rest of us are "pro-pull the wool over my eyes". You arrogant fool. I suppose all of the anti-DU crap you post on PI and SI has no bearing on your "pro-truth" stance. You are a real gem!

It's funny seeing your little "clan" stick up for each other - well, not so much funny as pathetic...

pathetic that...

and curb stomped a senior citizen? He was invited to speak about volunteerism, something President Obama knows a lot about.

He did the right thing by appearing and speaking at Texas A&M

Fuck the sympathy for George Bush.

Who cares if he is a senior citizen or has fully repented. He has killed tens of thousands. He deserves nothing but the worst.

And Obama ain't the person you think he is. I suggest you forget the hagiography and research the reality.

I wonder the same myself - there are some that have such unrealistic expectations that I have to question their honesty.

And the truth of the matter is that ALL politicians, no matter what side of the aisle, need to be held accountable to the American voter.

If the democrats do things that are WRONG then they should be held accountable for this. Like 50 million for abstinence only education after a study showed this program is total bullshit, like the give-aways to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. Like torture.

Do you really think that, whether on DU or not, people don't look at a democratically-controlled exec and legislative branch and ask why the fuck they spend so much time accommodating the right wing when they should be using their numbers to create a better nation IN SPITE OF Republicans?

Because, honestly, most people in America are not democratic party automatons. Democrats need to DELIVER for their constituency if they want their support and their vote.

the proper way to change those things. He's on our side and is a deliberative person. If you address concerns to him properly (not calling him a Corprotist Whore) he's likely to at least listen.

because, honestly, it is dishonest of you to respond to my post in that way.

It was badly worded and I apologize.

you were dishonest because, in truth, those things that I mentioned are problems that are not solved by telling everyone to submit to authority, no matter how compelling an argument that might be for you.

Most people do not live in the manichean world of everything from the democratic party = good while anything else = bad.

democrats can be and are just as corrupt as republicans. I vote for democrats because I don't have a better option. However, I think that this nation is due for a pendulum swing to the left after years of republican domination.

The voting population of the U.S., for democrats, is much more liberal than the party is - and the party risks alienating a lot of voters if they continue to pander to southern strategy voters whose power is on the decline.

I just wanted you to acknowledge that there is a lot of non-constructive criticism of our president and Democrats in general.

I agree that the country is swinging more liberal than the Democratic party represents right now and that will eventually correct itself as more liberal congressfolk are elected. The house is already more liberal than the Senate, but longer term lengths for the Senate insure that it will always be behind the trends of the country.

So, basically, what you are doing is trying to label all criticism as insult.

Legitimate issues, in other words, do not bear consideration for you because the point of your initial post is to discredit all of them. This is a typical linguistic tool used by political hacks and it falls apart when you have to look at people, not the straw man you are trying to attack.

Your authoritarian view doesn't play well with democratic voters, in other words. If your goal is to discredit criticism, you have failed in this case.

You are mis-characterizing my OP now. I should have been more specific in my response to you that I was looking for your opinion on those that engage in ad-hominem attacks on the President and call him names. I apologize for wording it poorly and causing you insult.

I feel constructive criticism is a good thing.

which is as much of a knee-jerk response as any criticism you may try to pin on others.

your op asked if people just opposed authority and if these people were now substituting Obama for Bush. Your reply painted my response as a broad brush insult, which it wasn't.

So, it isn't really about apologizing to me, for me. To me, this is about your motives for the op in the first place and your lack of ability to respond to genuine issues that concern voters.

In any case, I'm finished with this. But I do think that this give and take shows the weakness in your thinking if you engage in ad-hominem attacks yourself in the name of discrediting them.

It doesn't matter how much I apologize to you or admit that my response to you was badly worded? Exactly what did you want from my responses anyway?

in your response to me.

I said you didn't need to apologize to me because, to me, it's not personal.

Instead, I said that you are not succeeding at your task of labeling all criticism as knee-jerk response to authority, which is the gist of your op and the gist of your initial response to me.

In other words, to restate my initial response, Democrats need to deliver to their voters, not just Goldman Sachs or the theocrats. The triangulation of Rahm Emmanuel won't cut it in this economy. Even among republican voters, there is real and honest pain caused by economic policies that must be addressed.

Attacking Fox News is good, but it doesn't create jobs or make banks fess up to their remaining crappy assets or stop abuses of the Geneva Conventions or stop abuses of constitutional rights via FISA...you know, actual policy issues, not the bread and circuses.

Frankly, I was shocked at the way Obama pandered to the religious right, and at the way Congress continues to pander to this group that gets out in force to oppose democrats - no matter who the democrat may be. If Democrats want to bring in voters, they should look to those who are so sick of politics as usual that they don't even bother to vote.

What I wanted from your response was not the bullshit you posted intially. From that point on, anything you had to say was worthless.

A good portion of DU seems to not be so interested in holding Obama accountable as in advancing a pet theory that Democrats and Republicans are both corporated parties with hardly any differences with the logical conclusion that "it doesn't matter if we vote for them or not". As if we would have gotten Justice Sotomayor with President McCain, as if we would even be talking about health care reform if we had President McCain, as if we would still be pulling out of Iraq with a Republican Congress, and so on and so on.

And when I say that, I mean not necessarily any particular leader, but Democratic values that have historically worked and urgently need to be applied to today's problems.

it's not "authority", it is real concrete issues.


your assertion is just silly

For it to be a silly assertion. We even had a smattering of "No difference between Gore and Bush" posts during the early days.

I honestly think people see the word "Underground" first and think "Viva La Resistance".

It's easier to stand against everything than to stand for something.

also the "against all authority" meme. It's just a way to avoid real issues.

If I was against a policy under Bush, I continue to be against that policy under Obama. It's really not that complicated.

tried to discuss the facts.

propaganda..

haters, racist, whinners..authority..all good words to divide us and tear this country apart!

I do remember words like this during the Vietnam war..

In fact I remember my dad using those words when I protested a different war of lies..

Now there is a big black memorial In Washington and many of my peers long dead..I wonder sometimes , what some of those Young people would have or could have become.

I also remember this song...WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN, WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?

When my dad was dying , he finally quietly admitted to me , that I was right then, and he was very wrong..too bad so many young lives had to be snuffed out till he admitted he was wrong. But what he also told me..don't ever let anyone silence you..stand for what is right no matter if it is popular or not..that was his mistake...and his mistake got so many lives into graves before their time.

I don't give a rats crap what anyone says to me or what names they call me..I will stand for truth and right ..no matter what.I see those people that play these assinine games as the real criminals in this world, those who are too gutless to stand for right against wrong! People who would compromise our constitution away..what real hero's fought for , for all of us.

We are the authority..we are the government..don't ever forget that..we employ those who serve us..and we will and must hold all of them accountable..if we don't we don't deserve this great republic democracy.

years later, he admitted to me that he had a lot of respect for the courage on my part to oppose the war, and register as conscientious objector. Anyone who has been active for peace for some time, knows presidents come and go, but the struggle for peace continues.
The military industrial complex is still all powerful. I support Obama in all good things he tries to do. The struggle for peace and against militarism goes on.

than to accept that some Democrats might actually support our president and still oppose some of his apparent policy directions.

Some of your fellow Democrats may have taken the words of our president to heart when he asked us all to tell him what we want. He doesn't lump them into a "they just oppose all authority" category. He welcomed all of us to send in our comments.

Yes, some people get very emotional about those disagreements. They may have seen their fellow citizens foreclosed while billions went to bail out the financial sector. They may have hoped our president would promote a long overdue bailout for the working class through expanding Medicare for all who choose it as the public option. They may have seen uninsured friends die. They may have seen soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan and want both of those destructive wars to end now, as opposed to a few years from now. They may still remember the horrors of Abu Ghraib and feel that only very serious and thorough prosecutions of those who ordered those war crimes will prevent their happening again in future Republican administrations.

Some of your fellow Democrats hoped for more dramatic changes like a more abrupt cessation of our counter-productive warfare, especially since our troops have been corrupted by Christians who see their mission as crusading for their chief authority, Jesus Christ.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488 This is a link to Jeff Sharlet's article in Harper's called "Jesus Killed Mohammed: The Crusade for a Christian Military," and here is an excerpt.


Please support the group opposing these crusaders, The Military Religious Freedom Foundation
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/

Calling him a sellout doesn't do that and it seems to be a common thread around DU lately. Change is rarely quick.

I think those who urge suppression of their intense disappointment are also acting emotionally.

They cling to their hopes by trying not to look at those moves that have alienated their fellow Democrats like appointing Goldman Sachs vets to the treasury, taking single payer off the table, slowing down withdrawal from Iraq, considering banning some kinds of war photography, proceeding slowly with prosecution of war criminals, contemplating expanding the war on Afghanistan.

Or they look at the many positive things President Obama has done, rather than focusing on the areas that trouble the others.

I see lots of people who experienced torment during Bush Cheney Gang Rule and just wanted things to change more quickly and significantly than they are now. I understand their frustration.

I also understand those who would like to characterize that opposition as a mere knee-jerk opposition to all authority. That would be convenient, but it isn't true.

Change may have been slow but that doesn't mean we must therefore shut up and suppress our disappointment.

Some of us also know there are probably ideological opponents who aim to sow dissent in our ranks. They do that in various ways-- sometimes by saying our president is a sellout, sometimes by a blanket condemnation of all opposition to augment the impression that his supporters are fanatical devotees.

I have never used the "Ignore" feature but you could try it. Just shut out those who seem too strident in pushing the "he's a sellout" meme.

and wall street got their bail out quickly...and the 6 million out of jobs..well fuck them ,.right ..they just have to wait for that slow fucking change ..right??????????:popcorn: :banghead: :eyes:

Tough shit if they lose their homes..is that what you are saying..because to me,.. that is what you are saying..their change will just have to fucking wait,..while they lose their homes, and move into cars and tents all over this country ..as they are..or lose their health because they can't afford their meds or medical care..because change for the 6 million out of work.. just comes so much slower.. than for the FUCKING BANKS AND THE WALL STREET BOYS and their god damned bonus's!!

Ahhh and I have been a lifelong democrat, but i didn't agree with LBJ accelerating the war in Vietnam...and lying to Americans to accelerate the war in Vietnam...and i damn sure spoke out about it , I protested it, I did sit ins about it, and i joined in moratoriums and peace marches...that did not make me less of a democrat.

I also remember being called a whinner then and being told I was "bucking authority"..you are damn right i did and I always will, when i see anyone who is my employee in government doing what i believe is wrong!

yeah we get it..we know who and what counts..and you prove it more and more with each of your posts!!

I feel I'm pretty darn consistent in my views - no matter who's in charge and what letter they have after their name.

Or do you think he's dragging his feet?

If Obama does something I see as not liberal, I'll be bashing that.

Bashing only works on "Whack-a-mole" games.

what is the death count now..that honey didn't work out too well for the dead, now did it?

Or if I don't?

Neither he nor any other president hears me. The only people I can influence are fellow voters. I talk to the ones who are reasonable. I have fun with those I know to intractable.

The rest is kind of a long story.

:evilgrin:

You kinda freaked me out when I first got here a couple of years ago.

Now I want you on my walls.

:D :toast:

I know what I like Swamp Rat. :toast:

Because of comments like yours, I will likely produce a coffee table type book some day, and/or giclée prints of a few of my pix. I think this would make a good poster:

:D



Thanks again. :hi: :pals:

I learned enough since then - from DU and from IVAW & VFP - that I no longer blindly do that.

but I'll say it again.

I came here recently (post-inauguration) so as not to feel so alone in the world in this blood-red state in which I live.

The necks around here are just as red as the state itself. Blecch.

when I say I support Democrats, I mean Democratic voters, we are the Party, we are the authority and only source of power. The people we hire to work for us are not in charge of us, but we are in charge of them.
I support Democrats, and I hound politicians. You seem confused about who 'Democrats' are.

anyone with a "D" next to his/her name. Now, if you prefer a site that requires lock-step conformity, I have a suggestion for you: FreeRepublic.com. And yes, Unrec for insinuating that we all must goosestep to some corporate party line. Fuck that. And just in case you haven't read this part of the DU rules:

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole."

And I unrec on principle threads that make some sort of issue out of rec/unrec.

+1

Our system is skeptical of power. Liberal democracy is skeptical of power.

Any one can be skeptical of power in the form of a nasty cartoon like George W. Bush.

The principled thinker recognizes that being skeptical of Barack Obama is no less vital, just less obvious

The phenomenon you describe is more than balanced by the DU shift toward credulous, servile authoritarianism.

and to see Pres. Obama as successful as he can be. I like to be the first to say when Democrats get it right, and overall they often do. You're definitely right building the party, is always the best way forward. Now sometimes we may not get all we want but we will get there in the end. My mop is always at the ready.

Yet DU laments the failure of that bill to pass, but in enraged about the Obama bill. I don't get it.

The OPs are good for news now and then... the comments are... well... anyway...

I needed help defeating the lizard people. No one around here seems to care though!

They throw out words like "crazy" "shrink" "douchenozzle"

WHY CAN'T THEY SEE THE THREAT?!?!?!

home that I was raised in...

For years I believed I too was a Conservative.

However I found that there are a lot of crazy Conservatives, and they are not very open minded. But not all Conservatives are like that by any means.

I opened my mind to different ideas than what was traditionally accepted in my family and allthough some of them think I am nuts, others respect that I want to formulate my own opinions.

I want to see unification! I want to see change! I want to see an end to the hate on both sides! Yes it exists on both sides as hard as it is to believe it is true. An America united is my dream and I know it is many of yours as well. I don't know if we can get there... but one thing is for sure... if this wedge keeps getting driven in between our citizens there is no good that can come from that....

I really appreciate all that DU has to offer and allthough sometimes I am ridiculed for differences of opinion most here are willing to debate in respectable manner and I really appreciate that!

DUers should support those democratic representatives who support and advocate their values.

DUers should question authority. Constantly. And anyone who fails to do so, fails our democracy.

Last time I heard stuff like this was when I was a kid and a Young Democrat who did not support Lyndon Johnson or his Viet Nam war. I supported the party and its ideals and I still do, but that does not include walking in lockstep with every Democrat who is elected president. I think only the Nazis and Bush required that degree of fealty.

I do not support many of Obamas actions, or shall I say inactions in areas where he promised during his campaign to make change. I don't know what the heck he thinks he is doing. He is not proactive on his own issues, which happen to be very important to me, and he does nothing to try to unite the Democrats behind him so that he can be proactive. He seems to spend much more time with the Republicans or saying nothing at all while things the American people value by a large majority just slip away.

I know the difference between Obama and Bush. I'm am not senseless or stupid. I think and I react. Maybe not in the same way you do, but as I keep posting and posting they are my reactions and no one else is required to share them with me. If you feel Obama is the ideal president, more power to you. But don't try to tell the rest of us that we are bad Democrats or merely rebelling against authority if we don't agree with either you or the President.

There are all kinds and stripes of Democrats represented here, and it is our diversity of thought coming together that helps keep us strong. If I don't have a great idea, someone else will and I will learn from that. I am not learning here, however, and I will never learn to support a President or any other elected official just because someone else wants me to. That's not Democratic, that's more "Do what I say." I'm not very good at that. Oh, and I learned when I was 15, many many years ago that you don't rebel against authority just because it is there. You determine what it represents and stir in your own thoughts and ideas and then act accordingly in your support or lack of it.

Perhaps you didn't mean it to be, but I found this post to be rather condescending, as if all those of us who do not agree completely with Obama need is to be taken in hand and given a stern talking to. If that is the case, let it go. It never worked and it never will. People persist in having their own thoughts for their own reasons and grow very attached to them. It is called free will, I believe.

A lot of people here that complain like Obama but fear that politically expedient compromises will undermine important policy goals on health care, financial reform and civil rights.

To me it is better to push on those and find out it wasn't needed, than to rest on our laurels assuming a good outcome and be disappointed.

all politicians are scum bags and cowards and my only interest in politics is in specific issues, pragmatism is over because democrats have reached the pinnacle of power, now it is time for action.